assignment of management concept and

practices

Submitted to: prof. shaifali Tripathi

Submitted by: Saurabh Kumar Agrawal

Mba 1st SEM
Section: A
Q.1-: Explain of the principle contribution F W Taylor to
the development of management thought?

Ans: Frederick Winslow Taylor (March 20, 1856–March 21, 1915), widely known as F. W.
Taylor, was an American mechanical engineer who sought to improve industrial efficiency. He
is regarded as the father of scientific management, and was one of the first management
consultants.

Taylor was one of the intellectual leaders of the Efficiency Movement and his ideas, broadly
conceived, were highly influential in the Progressive Era.

Taylor believed that the industrial management of his day was amateurish, that management
could be formulated as an academic discipline, and that the best results would come from the
partnership between a trained and qualified management and a cooperative and innovative
workforce. Each side needed the other, and there was no need for trade unions.

Scientific Management and Frederick Winslow Taylor

By far the most influential person of the time and someone who has had an impact on
management service practice as well as on management thought up to the present day, was F. W.
Taylor. Taylor formalized the principles of scientific management, and the fact-finding approach
put forward and largely adopted was a replacement for what had been the old rule of thumb.

He also developed a theory of organizations which altered the personalized autocracy which had
only been tempered by varying degrees of benevolence, such as in the Quaker family businesses
of Cadbury's and Clark's.

Taylor was not the originator of many of his ideas, but was a pragmatist with the ability to
synthesize the work of others and promote them effectively to a ready and eager audience of
industrial managers who were striving to find new or improved ways to increase performance.

At the time of Taylor's work, a typical manager would have very little contact with the activities
of the factory. Generally, a foreman would be given the total responsibility for producing goods
demanded by the salesman. Under these conditions, workmen used what tools they had or could
get and adopted methods that suited their own style of work.
Taylor's scientific management consisted of four principles:

1. Replace rule-of-thumb work methods with methods based on a scientific study of

the tasks.
2. Scientifically select, train, and develop each employee rather than passively
leaving them to train themselves.
3. Provide "Detailed instruction and supervision of each worker in the performance
of that worker's discrete task" (Montgomery 1997: 250).
4. Divide work nearly equally between managers and workers, so that the
managers apply scientific management principles to planning the work and the workers
actually perform the tasks.

F.W. Taylor's contributions to scientific management

By 1881 Taylor had published a paper that turned the cutting of metal into a science. Later he
turned his attention to shoveling coal. By experimenting with different designs of shovel for use
with different material, (from 'rice' coal to ore,) he was able to design shovels that would permit
the worker to shovel for the whole day.

In so doing, he reduced the number of people shoveling at the Bethlehem Steel Works from 500
to 140. This work, and his studies on the handling of pig iron, greatly contributed to the analysis
of work design and gave rise to method study.

To follow, in 1895, were papers on incentive schemes. A piece rate system on production
management in shop management, and later, in 1909, he published the book for which he is best
known, Principles of Scientific Management.

A feature of Taylor's work was stop-watch timing as the basis of observations. However, unlike
the early activities of Perronet and others, he started to break the timings down into elements and
it was he who coined the term 'time study'.

Taylor's uncompromising attitude in developing and installing his ideas caused him much
criticism. Scientific method, he advocated, could be applied to all problems and applied just as
much to managers as workers. In his own words he explained:

"The old fashioned dictator does not exist under Scientific Management. The man at the
head of the business under Scientific Management is governed by rules and laws which
have been developed through hundreds of experiments just as much as the workman is,
and the standards developed are equitable."
Objectives of Scientific Management

The four objectives of management under scientific management were as follows:

• The development of a science for each element of a man's work to replace the old rule-of-
thumb methods.
• The scientific selection, training and development of workers instead of allowing them to
choose their own tasks and train themselves as best they could.
• The development of a spirit of hearty cooperation between workers and management to
ensure that work would be carried out in accordance with scientifically devised
procedures.

The division of work between workers and the management in almost equal shares, each group
taking over the work for which it is best fitted instead of the former condition in which
responsibility largely rested with the workers. Self-evident in this philosophy are organizations
arranged in a hierarchy, systems of abstract rules and impersonal relationships between staff.
Q.2-: What are the major findings of Hawthorne
experiment? Examine their significance for the practice
managers?

Ans: Elton Mayo's Hawthorne Experiments Findings

The Hawthorne effect is a form of reactivity whereby subjects improve an aspect of their
behavior being experimentally measured simply in response to the fact that they are being
studied,[1][2] not in response to any particular experimental manipulation.

The term was coined in 1955 by Henry A. Landsberger[3] when analyzing older experiments from
1924-1932 at the Hawthorne Works (a Western Electric manufacturing facility outside Chicago).
Hawthorne Works had commissioned a study to see if its workers would become more
productive in higher or lower levels of light. The workers' productivity seemed to improve when
changes were made and slumped when the study was concluded. It was suggested that the
productivity gain was due to the motivational effect of the interest being shown in them.
Although illumination research of workplace lighting formed the basis of the Hawthorne effect,
other changes such as maintaining clean work stations, clearing floors of obstacles, and even
relocating workstations resulted in increased productivity for short periods of time. Thus the term
is used to identify any type of short-lived increase in productivity

History

The term gets its name from a factory called the Hawthorne Works,[6] where a series of
experiments on factory workers were carried out between 1924 and 1932.
This effect was observed for minute increases in illumination.Evaluation of the Hawthorne effect
continues in the modern era.[7][8][9]Most industrial/occupational psychology and organizational
behavior textbooks refer to the illumination studies. Only occasionally are the rest of the studies
mentioned.[10] In the lighting studies, light intensity was altered to examine its effect on worker
productivity.

Relay assembly experiments

In one of the studies, experimenters chose two women as test subjects and asked them to choose
four other workers to join the test group. Together the women worked in a separate room over
the course of five years (1927-1932) assembling telephone relays.

Output was measured mechanically by counting how many finished relays each dropped down a
chute. This measuring began in secret two weeks before moving the women to an experiment
room and continued throughout the study. In the experiment room, they had a supervisor who
discussed changes with them and at times used their suggestions. Then the researchers spent five
years measuring how different variables impacted the group's and individuals' productivity.
Some of the variables were:

• changing the pay rules so that the group was paid for overall group
production, not individual production
• giving two 5-minute breaks (after a discussion with them on the best length
of time), and then changing to two 10-minute breaks (not their preference).
Productivity increased, but when they received six 5-minute rests, they
disliked it and reduced output.
• providing food during the breaks
• shortening the day by 30 minutes (output went up); shortening it more
(output per hour went up, but overall output decreased); returning to the first
condition (where output peaked).

Changing a variable usually increased productivity, even if the variable was just a change back to
the original condition. However it is said that this is the natural process of the human being to
adapt to the environment without knowing the objective of the experiment occurring.
Researchers concluded that the workers worked harder because they thought that they were
being monitored individually.

Researchers hypothesized that choosing one's own coworkers, working as a group, being treated
as special (as evidenced by working in a separate room), and having a sympathetic supervisor
were the real reasons for the productivity increase. One interpretation, mainly due to Elton
Mayo,[citation needed] was that "the six individuals became a team and the team gave itself
wholeheartedly and spontaneously to cooperation in the experiment." (There was a second relay
assembly test room study whose results were not as significant as the first experiment.)

Interviewing Program

The workers were interviewed in attempt to validate the Hawthorne Studies. The participants
were asked about supervisory practices and employee morale. The results proved that upward
communication in an organization creates a positive attitude in the work environment. The
workers feel pleased that their ideas are being heard.

Bank wiring room experiments

The purpose of the next study was to find out how payment incentives would affect group
productivity. The surprising result was that productivity actually decreased. Workers apparently
had become suspicious that their productivity may have been boosted to justify firing some of
the workers later on.[11] The study was conducted by Mayo and W. Lloyd Warner between 1931
and 1932 on a group of fourteen men who put together telephone switching equipment. The
researchers found that although the workers were paid according to individual productivity,
productivity decreased because the men were afraid that the company would lower the base rate.
Detailed observation between the men revealed the existence of informal groups or "cliques"
within the formal groups. These cliques developed informal rules of behavior as well as
mechanisms to enforce them. The cliques served to control group members and to manage
bosses; when bosses asked questions, clique members gave the same responses, even if they
were untrue. These results show that workers were more responsive to the social force of their
peer groups than to the control and incentives of management.

Q.3-: List the Fayol’s principle of management?

Ans: Fayol (1841-1925) Functions and Principles of

Management

Henri Fayol, a French engineer and director of mines, was little

unknown outside France until the late 40s when Constance Storrs published
her translation of Fayol's 1916 “Administration Industrielle et Generale ".

Fayol's career began as a mining engineer. He then moved into

research geology and in 1888 joined, Comambault as Director. Comambault
was in difficulty but Fayol turned the operation round. On retirement he
published his work - a comprehensive theory of administration - described
and classified administrative management roles and processes then became
recognized and referenced by others in the growing discourse about
management. He is frequently seen as a key, early contributor to a classical
or administrative management school of thought (even though he himself
would never have recognized such a "school").

His theorizing about administration was built on personal

observation and experience of what worked well in terms of organization. His
aspiration for an "administrative science" sought a consistent set of
principles that all organizations must apply in order to run properly.

Fayol was a key figure in the turn-of-the-century Classical School of management theory. He
saw a manager's job as:

• planning
• organizing
• commanding
• coordinating activities
• controlling performance

Notice that most of these activities are very task-oriented, rather than people-oriented. This is
very like.

Fayol laid down the following principles of organization (he called them principles of
management):

1. Specialization/Division of Work. A principle of work allocation

and specialization in order to concentrate activities to enable
specialization of skills and understandings, more work focus and
efficiency. Specialization allows the individual to build up experience,
and to continuously improve his skills. Thereby he can be more
productive.
2. Authority. The right to issue commands, along with which must
go the balanced responsibility for its function. A manager should
never be given authority without responsibility--and also should never
be given responsibility without the associated authority to get the
work done.
3. Discipline. Employees must obey, but this is two-sided:
employees will only obey orders if management play their part by
providing good leadership. The generalization about discipline is that
discipline is essential for the smooth running of a business and without
it - standards, consistency of action, adherence to rules and values -
no enterprise could prosper.
4. Unity of Command. Each worker should have only one boss
with no other conflicting lines of command. The idea is that an
employee should receive instructions from one superior only. This
generalization still holds - even where we are involved with team and
matrix structures which involve reporting to more than one boss - or
being accountable to several clients. The basic concern is that
tensions and dilemmas arise where we report to two or more bosses.
One boss may want X, the other Y and the subordinate is caught
between the devil and the deep blue sea.
5. Unity of Direction. People engaged in the same kind of
activities must have the same objectives in a single plan. This is
essential to ensure unity and coordination in the enterprise. Unity of
command does not exist without unity of direction but does not
necessarily flows from it. The unity of command idea of having one
head (chief executive, cabinet consensus with agree purposes and
objectives and one plan for a group of activities) is clear.
6. Subordination of individual interest to the general
interest: Management must see that the goals of the firms are
always paramount. Fayol's line was that one employee's interests or
those of one group should not prevail over the organization as a
whole. This would spark a lively debate about who decides that the
interests of the organization as a whole are. Ethical dilemmas and
matters of corporate risk and the behavior of individual "chancres" are
involved here. Fayol's work - assumes a shared set of values by
people in the organization - a unitary where the reasons for
organizational activities and decisions are in some way neutral and
reasonable.
7. Remuneration. Payment is an important motivator although by
analyzing a number of possibilities, Fayol points out that there is no
such thing as a perfect system. The general principle is that levels of
compensation should be "fair" and as far as possible afford
satisfaction both to the staff and the firm (in terms of its cost
structures and desire for profitability/surplus).
8. Centralization (or Decentralization). This is a matter of degree
depending on the condition of the business and the quality of its
personnel. Centralization for Fayol is essential to the organization and
a natural consequence of organizing. This issue does not go away
even where flatter, devolved organizations occur. Decentralization - is
frequently centralized-decentralization!!! The modes of control over
the actions and results of devolved organizations are still matters
requiring considerable attention.
9. Scalar chain (Line of Authority). A hierarchy is necessary for
unity of direction. But lateral communication is also fundamental, as
long as superiors know that such communication is taking place.
Scalar chain refers to the number of levels in the hierarchy from the
ultimate authority to the lowest level in the organization. It should not
be over-stretched and consist of too-many levels. The scalar chain of
command of reporting relationships from top executive to the ordinary
shop operative or driver needs to be sensible, clear and understood.
10. Order. Both material order and social order are necessary. The
former minimizes lost time and useless handling of materials. The
latter is achieved through organization and selection. The level of
generalization becomes difficult with this principle. Basically an
organization "should" provide an orderly place for each individual
member - who needs to see how their role fits into the organization
and be confident, able to predict the organizations behavior towards
them. Thus policies, rules, instructions and actions should be
understandable and understood. Orderliness implies steady
evolutionary movement rather than wild, anxiety provoking,
unpredictable movement.
11. Equity. In running a business a ‘combination of kindliness and
justice’ is needed. Treating employees well is important to achieve
equity. Equity, fairness and a sense of justice "should” pervade the
organization - in principle and practice.
12. Stability of Tenure of Personnel. Employees work better if job
security and career progress are assured to them. An insecure tenure
and a high rate of employee turnover will affect the organization
adversely. Time is needed for the employee to adapt to his/her work
and perform it effectively. Stability of tenure promotes loyalty to the
organization, its purposes and values.
13. Initiative. Allowing all personnel to show their initiative in some
way is a source of strength for the organization. Even though it may
well involve a sacrifice of ‘personal vanity’ on the part of many
managers. At all levels of the organizational structure, zeal;
enthusiasm and energy are enabled by people having the scope for
personal initiative.
 14. Esprit de Corps. Management must foster the morale of its
employees. He further suggests that: “real talent is needed to
coordinate effort, encourage keenness, use each person’s abilities,
and reward each one’s merit without arousing possible jealousies and
disturbing harmonious relations”. Here Fayol emphasizes the need for
building and maintaining of harmony among the work force, team
work and sound interpersonal relationships.
Q.4-: a) Distinguish between classical & neo classical
theory?

b) Human relation theory & scientific mgmt?

ans: a) Classical Organization Theory

Classical organization theory evolved during the first half of this century. It represents
the merger of scientific management, bureaucratic theory, and administrative theory.

Frederick Taylor (1917) developed scientific management theory (often called

"Taylorism") at the beginning of this century. His theory had four basic principles: 1)
find the one "best way" to perform each task, 2) carefully match each worker to each
task, 3) closely supervise workers, and use reward and punishment as motivators, and
4) the task of management is planning and control.

Initially, Taylor was very successful at improving production. His methods involved
getting the best equipment and people, and then carefully scrutinizing each component
of the production process. By analyzing each task individually, Taylor was able to
find the right combinations of factors that yielded large increases in production.

While Taylor's scientific management theory proved successful in the simple

industrialized companies at the turn of the century, it has not faired well in modern
companies. The philosophy of "production first, people second" has left a legacy of
declining production and quality, dissatisfaction with work, loss of pride in
workmanship, and a near complete loss of organizational pride.

Max Weber (1947) expanded on Taylor's theories, and stressed the need to reduce
diversity and ambiguity in organizations. The focus was on establishing clear lines of
authority and control. Weber's bureaucratic theory emphasized the need for a
hierarchical structure of power. It recognized the importance of division of labor and
specialization. A formal set of rules was bound into the hierarchy structure to insure
stability and uniformity. Weber also put forth the notion that organizational behavior
is a network of human interactions, where all behavior could be understood by
looking at cause and effect.

Administrative theory (i.e., principles of management) was formalized in the 1930's

by Mooney and Reiley (1931). The emphasis was on establishing a universal set of
management principles that could be applied to all organizations.

Classical management theory was rigid and mechanistic. The shortcomings of

classical organization theory quickly became apparent. Its major deficiency was that it
attempted to explain peoples' motivation to work strictly as a function of economic
reward.

Neoclassical Organization Theory

The human relations movement evolved as a reaction to the tough, authoritarian

structure of classical theory. It addressed many of the problems inherent in classical
theory. The most serious objections to classical theory are that it created
overconformity and rigidity, thus squelching creativity, individual growth, and
motivation. Neoclassical theory displayed genuine concern for human needs.

One of the first experiments that challenged the classical view was conducted by
Mayo and Roethlisberger in the late 1920's at the Western Electric plant in
Hawthorne, Illinois (Mayo, 1933). While manipulating conditions in the work
environment (e.g., intensity of lighting), they found that any change had a positive
impact on productivity. The act of paying attention to employees in a friendly and
nonthreatening way was sufficient by itself to increase output. Uris (1986) referred to
this as the "wart" theory of productivity. Nearly any treatment can make a wart go
away--nearly anything will improve productivity. "The implication is plain: intelligent
action often delivers results" (Uris, 1986, p. 225).

The Hawthorne experiment is quite disturbing because it cast doubts on our ability to
evaluate the efficacy of new management theories. An organization might continually
involve itself in the latest management fads to produce a continuous string of
Hawthorne effects. "The result is usually a lot of wheel spinning and cynicism"
(Pascale, 1990, p. 103). Pascale believes that the Hawthorne effect is often
misinterpreted. It is a "parable about researchers (and managers) manipulating and
'playing tricks' on employees." (p. 103) Erroneous conclusions are drawn because it
represents a controlling and manipulative attitude toward workers.

Writing in 1939, Barnard (1968) proposed one of the first modern theories of
organization by defining organization as a system of consciously coordinated
activities. He stressed in role of the executive in creating an atmosphere where there is
coherence of values and purpose. Organizational success was linked to the ability of a
leader to create a cohesive environment. He proposed that a manager's authority is
derived from subordinates' acceptance, instead of the hierarchical power structure of
the organization. Barnard's theory contains elements of both classical and neoclassical
approaches. Since there is no consensus among scholars, it might be most appropriate
to think of Barnard as a transition theorist.

Simon (1945) made an important contribution to the study of organizations when he

proposed a model of "limited rationality" to explain the Hawthorne experiments. The
theory stated that workers could respond unpredictably to managerial attention. The
most important aspect of Simon's work was the rigorous application of the scientific
method. Reductionism, quantification, and deductive logic were legitimized as the
methods of studying organizations.

Taylor, Weber, Barnard, Mayo, Roethlisberger, and Simon shared the belief that the
goal of management was to maintain equilibrium. The emphasis was on being able to
control and manipulate workers and their environment.

b) Scientific mgmt

The scientific management movement emphasized a concern for task (output) i.e. it
considered the individual worker to be the basic unit of Organization. While the
Human Relations Movement stressed a concern for Relationships (people) i.e. the
informal group was now the basis of organization. The function of the leader under
scientific management was to set work criteria and enforce them on the workers and
was to be seen as the figure of high authority. While under the human relations
movement, the function of the leader was to facilitate cooperation and coordination
among the employees while providing assistance and opportunities for their ‘personal
growth and development’ and was to be seen as “an agent for intra and inter group
communication”. Taylor’s avoided ‘informal groups’, but the human relations
movement supported their existence. The reason was that scientific management
portrayed the worker as mechanical, passive and a being that worked only for
monetary rewards and ‘the one best way’ to achieve organizational goals was to
maintain as much rationality as possible. But the human relations movement believed
that the existence of such informal groups would facilitate the communication and
cooperation among members and would help achieve organizational goals. Scientific
management aimed at the growth of the organization but paid little attention to the
worker’s individual growth by exercising external control over the worker’s
performance.

Human relation theory

While the human relations movement aimed at organizational growth, yet
maintaining the dedication to the individual growth of the worker. According
to Taylor, the sole motivator for a worker was ‘monetary incentive’.
Therefore, the worker under scientific management was an ‘economic man’.
According to Mayo, satisfaction of social wants of the workers like
communication and the sense of acceptance was the driving force of the
organization. Therefore, the worker under the human relations movement
was a ‘social man’. Scientific management treated the worker as a ‘human
machine’ and used the differential system’ for motivation. While, the human
relations movement held that the satisfaction of the worker was its main
objective. According to the human relations movement, “satisfied workers
are motivated workers and therefore effective workers”.

Q.5-: Outline the major contributions of Rensis Likert,

Chesrer Bernard, and Max Weber?

Ans: Rensis Likert (pronounced 'Lick-urt') (1903–1981) was an American educator and
organizational psychologist best known for his research on management styles. He developed
his eponymous Likert Scale and the linking pin model. In the 1960s Likert developed four
systems of management which described the relationship, involvement, and roles between
management and subordinates in industrial settings. The four systems is a result of the study
that he has done with the highly productive supervisors and their team members of an American
Insurance Company. Later on, he and Jane G. Likert revised the systems to apply to
educational settings. Their revision was initial intended to spell out the roles of principals,
students, and teachers; eventually other individuals in the academic realm were included such
as superintendents, administrators, and parents.
Exploitive authoritative system (I)

In this type of management system the job of employees/subordinates is to abide by the

decisions made by managers and those with a higher status than them in the organisation. The
subordinates do not participate in the decision making. The organisation is concerned simply
about completing the work. The organisation will use fear and threats to make sure employees
complete the work set. There is no teamwork involved.

'Benevolent authoritative system (II)'

Just as in an exploitive authoritative system, decisions are made by those at the top of the
organisation and management. However employees are motivated through rewards (for their
contribution) rather than fear and threats. Information may flow from subordinates to managers
but it is restricted to “what management want to hear”.

Consultative system (III)

In this type of management system, subordinates are motivated by rewards and a degree of
involvement in the decision making process. Management will constructively use their
subordinates ideas and opinions. However involvement is incomplete and major decisions are
still made by senior management. There is a greater flow of information (than in a benevolent
authoritative system) from subordinates to management. Although the information from
subordinate to manager is incomplete and euphemistic.

Participative (group) system (IV)

Management have complete confidence in their subordinates/employees. There is lots of

communication and subordinates are fully involved in the decision making process.
Subordinates comfortably express opinions and there is lots of teamwork. Teams are linked
together by people, who are members of more than one team. Likert calls people in more than
one group “linking pins”. Employees throughout the organisation feel responsible for achieving
the organisation’s objectives. This responsibility is motivational especially as subordinates are
offered economic rewards for achieving organisational goals which they have participated in
setting.

2.Chester Barnard, who was president of New Jersey Bell Telephone Company,
introduced the idea of the informal organization — cliques (exclusive groups of people)
that naturally form within a company. He felt that these informal organizations provided
necessary and vital communication functions for the overall organization and that they could
help the organization accomplish its goals.

Barnard felt that it was particularly important for managers to develop a sense of
common purpose where a willingness to cooperate is strongly encouraged. He is
credited with developing the acceptance theory of management, which
emphasizes the willingness of employees to accept that managers have legitimate
authority to act. Barnard felt that four factors affected the willingness of
employees to accept authority:

• The employees must understand the communication.

• The employees accept the communication as being consistent with the organization's
purposes.

• The employees feel that their actions will be consistent with the needs and desires of
the other employees.

• The employees feel that they are mentally and physically able to carry out the order.

Barnard's sympathy for and understanding of employee needs positioned him as a bridge to
the behavioral school of management, the next school of thought to emerge.

3. Max Weber
In the late 1800s, Max Weber disliked that many European organizations were
managed on a “personal” family-like basis and that employees were loyal to
individual supervisors rather than to the organization. He believed that
organizations should be managed impersonally and that a formal organizational
structure, where specific rules were followed, was important. In other words, he
didn't think that authority should be based on a person's personality. He thought
authority should be something that was part of a person's job and passed from
 individual to individual as one person left and another took over. This
nonpersonal, objective form of organization was called a bureaucracy.

Weber believed that all bureaucracies have the following characteristics:

•A well-defined hierarchy. All positions within a bureaucracy are structured in a way

that permits the higher positions to supervise and control the lower positions. This
clear chain of command facilitates control and order throughout the organization.

• Division of labor and specialization. All responsibilities in an organization are

specialized so that each employee has the necessary expertise to do a particular task.

• Rules and regulations. Standard operating procedures govern all organizational

activities to provide certainty and facilitate coordination.

• Impersonal relationships between managers and employees. Managers should

maintain an impersonal relationship with employees so that favoritism and personal
prejudice do not influence decisions.

• Competence. Competence, not “who you know,” should be the basis for all
decisions made in hiring, job assignments, and promotions in order to foster ability
and merit as the primary characteristics of a bureaucratic organization.

• Records. A bureaucracy needs to maintain complete files regarding all its activities.

Classical organization theory is the “B” in bureaucracy. Weber defined the organization elements
which comprised the “ideal bureaucracy.” These included:

• A clearly defined (and documented) set of rules and procedures. This is

the company handbook, and other written instruments of company policy
• Division of labor according to functional expertise. This is the notion of
individual departments (sales, purchasing, accounting, etc.)
• A clear chain of command. There is a hierarchy based on management
rank. Weber also stipulated that authority in an organizational setting should be
based on the office itself—not on the individual. (Consider a political analogy:
 Neither Gerald Ford nor Jimmy Carter would be empowered to declare war or
veto a bill today. Their past executive powers were based on the office they held
—not on their individual persons.)
• Individual advancement based on merit. Promotions should go to those
who deserve who perform well on the job.
• Professional managers. The person (or other entity) who owns the
company doesn’t necessarily possess the expertise needed to keep it running
smoothly on a day-to-day basis.

As you can see, many aspects of Weber’s “ideal bureaucracy” are simply measures that ensure
fairness and objectivity. But critics of classical organization theory charged that it placed too
much faith in the infallibility of rules and procedures, while ignoring important aspects of
individual motivation.

Que. 6: Management environment in future is going to be

more challenging requiring high degree of
professionalization from management?
Ans: Management is that organ of the society which is given the responsibility of making
the productive use of resources for the betterment of the society. Modern manager have
the responsibility to denise the management practices to meet the new challenges &
make use of the opportunities for growth of the organization.

FUTUR CHALLENGES OF MANAGEMAENT: during the last 2 decades there has been
a phenomenal growth in size and complexity of an organization in every field be it
government, religions, educational, medical, military or business.
There are ten fundamental premises that will determine your overall management success.
Before we get to the five biggest challenges facing managers I thought I would give you the ten
since thet are closely related.

1. When you have an issue, problem, failure, dysfunction or whatever – any -

where in the organization – look up the ladder for the cause and down the ladder
for the solution.

2. Everything that happens in an organization is the direct or indirect result of

that organization’s culture, philosophy and core beliefs.

3.You get the behavior you reward.

4. Effective management is not about the latest fad or philosophy. It is about a

fundament trust and respect for people and treating them accordingly.

5. Growing a business is not hard and it should be fun for everyone.

6. Integrity and ethics must be the foundation for all of your decisions and
actions.

7. If you want effective and productive employees you must see employee
development as an investment and not a cost

8. What employees want to be motivated and performance driven

is appreciation, recognition, validation and to feel important and to feel like they
belong.

9. The job of management is not to motivate employees but to create a positive

motivational climate where employees take responsibility for their own motivation
and performance.

10. You are responsible to your employees and not for them.

Here are the five biggest challenges today. They are;

·Corporate culture. Corporate, organization and department culture all flows from the top down.
The written and unwritten rules, policies and philosophy of a manager or the organization all
eventually find their way into the attitudes and performance of almost everyone in the
organization. One of the critical things to remember when dealing with people is: you get the
behavior you reward. If the culture directly or indirectly rewards a certain type of attitude or
behavior, you are, by your actions or inactions, probably reaffirming that these are acceptable. If
you want to change behavior, you must first evaluate the culture that is in place that may be
rewarding the type of behavior you are getting but don’t necessarily want.
·Communication style. Rumors, hearsay, memos, emails, meetings, individual counseling
sessions and bulletin boards all have one thing in common – they communicate information –
some more effectively and timely than others. If communication in an organization is all top-
down, you can be assured that you are not in touch with the realities of your organization, the
marketplace, your customers or suppliers.

·Organization direction. One of the biggest challenges managers face today is effectively
communicating corporate direction with clarity and consistency to all employees who have a
right and need to know. Most organizations do a poor job of this at best. One way to find out
what your people believe is to conduct an anonymous survey of attitudes, perceptions and
opinions.

·Decision making. Many managers make decisions that other employees will either have to
implement or that will affect them. If these decisions are made without bottom-up feedback, you
can guarantee that the outcome of the decisions will be less than desired or expected.

·Feedback mechanisms. Employees want to know how they are doing – whether poorly or well.
Failure to give them the feedback they need is to keep them in the dark regarding the assessment
of their performance and how and where they need to improve.

Important area which would create challenges for management are:

1. Social environment

2. Economic environment

3. International environment

4. Technological environment

5. Political environment

6. Physical environment

The trends of these environments and there relevance for future managers are:

1. Changes in social environment

Factors that shape social environment

 Population explosion
  Education level

 Leisure time

 Public opinion

2. Changes in economic environment

3. Changes in technological environment

 Automation

 Information technology

4. Changes in physical environment

5. Changes in political environment

6. Changes in International environment